Jet Flies On With One Engine Out on Nonstop Trip to London

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

This situation is going to be "interesting" as it plays out. I hate to
second guess a guy who isn't here so I won't, but as I said, this one could
get VERY interesting before the fuzz is finished with it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

It's going to be simple actually. It will all depend on BA's operational
policies. If he followed it, then he's safe--if not, then he's in trouble.
An airline's flight ops are approved by the various governing entities. As
long as they are followed, my impression is that the pilot would be legally
safe.

Marco Leon

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
link.net...
This situation is going to be "interesting" as it plays out. I hate to
second guess a guy who isn't here so I won't, but as I said, this one
could
get VERY interesting before the fuzz is finished with it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

Stay tuned! :-)
After all the legal hash is played out, the chief pilot at BA is going to
have to take a long hard look at this guy's judgment call. And after THAT,
there's a little something called "establishing precedent" that BA just
might not want to get involved with.
This type of thing in the industry is never "easy". You have a condition and
you make a call. That's the easy part, considering you get away with it as
this guy did. The devil is in the details however on situations like this
one.
If no violation, then it can go several ways at the front office.....odds on
bad for the Captain. The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to
continue that involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending
condition that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would
not have been present without his having proceeded with the engine
condition.
It all came up roses, but it's the manure the roses were planted in that
will either nail this guy or let him off the hook.
We'll see!! :-)
I've been around this business all my professional career. I've seen this
type of thing nail some pretty good people....but who knows really. We'll
have to wait and see. Like I said, it's going to be interesting watching it
go down. :-)
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)

Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)



"Marco Leon" mmleon(at)yahoo.com wrote in message
...
It's going to be simple actually. It will all depend on BA's operational
policies. If he followed it, then he's safe--if not, then he's in trouble.
An airline's flight ops are approved by the various governing entities. As
long as they are followed, my impression is that the pilot would be
legally
safe.

Marco Leon

"Dudley Henriques" wrote in message
link.net...
This situation is going to be "interesting" as it plays out. I hate to
second guess a guy who isn't here so I won't, but as I said, this one
could
get VERY interesting before the fuzz is finished with it.
Dudley Henriques
International Fighter Pilots Fellowship
Commercial Pilot; CFI; Retired
dhenriquestrashatearthlinktrashdotnet
(take out the trash :-)
"Mike Rapoport" wrote in message
nk.net...
So, is this good or bad?

Mike
MU-2


"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...

Here's food for thought. The pilot chose to press on on three
engines, and then had to land for refueling ~100 miles short of his
transatlantic destination.



http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,2497317.story

March 1, 2005
By Eric Malnic and Hector Becerra, Times Staff Writers

Jet Flies On With One Engine Out
Despite LAX takeoff malfunction, British Airways pilot continues
nonstop trip to London. The 747 lands safely but short of its
destination.

A British Airways jumbo jet lost power in an engine on takeoff
from Los Angeles International Airport last month, but the pilot
elected not to make an emergency landing for repairs, deciding
instead to continue the 5,400-mile, transatlantic flight to London
on the remaining three engines, officials said Monday.

Because of unfavorable winds and inefficiencies resulting from the
engine loss, the Boeing 747-400 burned more fuel than anticipated,
and the pilot was forced to cut the nonstop flight short and land
in Manchester, England, the airline said. ...

The fact remains that this Captain made a decision to
continue that involved not only the engine scenario, but as well an ending
condition that involved an unscheduled landing due to conditions that would
not have been present without his having proceeded with the engine
condition.

I don't understand this statement. Had the captain elected to do
something else, there would still be an unscheduled landing. With more
fuel on board. In fact, by continuing, the captain ended up with the
greatest probability of =not= having an unscheduled landing.

Jose
--
Nothing is more powerful than a commercial interest.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

Larry Dighera wrote:

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

Whichever has the cheapest fare. It's also about money to me.

George Patterson
I prefer Heaven for climate but Hell for company.

But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the
required reserves at that time. A great circle route between LA and London
crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the
UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of
running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in
Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with. It will be
interesting to see what the whole story is. It probably comes down to
deciding to continue after passing each suitable airport with plenty of fuel
to reach the next suitable airport. The airports are only 500-700nm apart
so he was always less than an hour from a suitable airport. I would also
doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company dispatch. I
guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to
Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii.

It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh
in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy
had three jet engines!!!

I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine
airplane?

Mike
MU-2



"Larry Dighera" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 16:53:08 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

So, is this good or bad?

I would say, it sort of depends on from whose point of view you are
making the judgment.

British Airways didn't have to stand the costs involved in dumping
fuel to facilitate landing back at LAX nor compensate passengers $523
each for delays as mandated by the EU three days earlier.

The pilot's decision to press on may have failed to consider head
winds and the added drag of rudder input to compensate for
asymmetrical thrust, thus needlessly endangering the passengers'
lives. After all, it was necessary for him to land 167 miles short of
his destination in order to satisfy minimum fuel requirements upon
landing at his London destination.

Someone more qualified than me had this to say:

"It's not impossible for him to make it, but he'd be a fool to try
it," said Barry Schiff, a former TWA pilot. "That decision just
doesn't make any sense."

However, Robin Hayes, British Airways' executive vice president for
operations in the United States, said:

"The procedure [continuing a flight on three engines] is within
our normal operating protocols."

So in the end, it's about money v safety.

Let me ask you a question. Given British Airways' stated policy
above, would you choose for your European vacation BA or a US airline
that doesn't have that policy?

On Tue, 01 Mar 2005 18:08:58 GMT, "Mike Rapoport"
wrote in
et::

But he landed only 167 miles short of his destination and presumably had the
required reserves at that time.

Presumably.

A great circle route between LA and London
crosses Greenland, passes near Iceland and then overflies Scottland and the
UK. I don't think that you can make the case that there was a big risk of
running out of fuel far from an airport. In fact, he could have landed in
Scottland with about 40 minutes more fuel than he landed with.

Perhaps. I presume there runways adequate for B-747 operation in
Scotland and all those intermediate airports.

It will be interesting to see what the whole story is.

I doubt the "whole story" will ever be completely revealed.

It probably comes down to deciding to continue after passing each suitable
airport with plenty of fuel to reach the next suitable airport. The airports
are only 500-700nm apart so he was always less than an hour from a suitable
airport.

Thanks for that information.

I would also doubt that he made this decision without consulting his company
dispatch.

Right. But given the BA policy, I'm not sure their input was safety
oriented.

I guess that I might feel differently if the flight was going from LAX to
Sidney and decided not to return or to land at Hawaii.

Definitely.

It seems kind of wierd to me too but then most of the pilots that will weigh
in on this topic continue on one piston engine one every flight and this guy
had three jet engines!!!

That brings up another issue. What would you estimate the flight
characteristics of a B-747 to be if the other engine on the wing with
the dead engine had failed? I would guess it would be virtually
uncontrollable without reducing power significantly resulting in a
forced descent.

And another issue is, if the engine failure had been a result of fuel
contamination, how did the PIC determine that the remaining fuel was
safe for continued transcontinental flight?

Additionally, when the engine failed, ATC mentioned sparks being seen.
How did the PIC determine there was no structural damage to the
airframe as a result of the engine failure?

I would fly either BA or another airline based on schedule and fare. Are
you safer flying four engine BA airplane or on an somebody else's two engine
airplane?

I don't have the requisite experience in airliner operation to begin
to answer that question.